UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class 


Book 


Volume 


Ja  09-20M 


SENATE'.. '; :  Nti.  387. 


€oimnonn»attl)  of  ilTaosaclju^ttts* 


In  Senate,  June  10,  1869. 

The  Special  Committee  of  the  Senate,  to  whom  was  referred 
the  House  Bill  for  the  "  Regulation  of  Gas  Companies  and 
the  better  protection  of  Consumers  of  Gas,"  and  the  petition 
of  Messrs.  Converse,  Taylor  &  Co.Vnd  others,  in  favor  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  having  attended^  to  the  duty  assigned 
them,  beg  leave  to 

REPORT: 

The  bill  referred  to  your  Committee  is  substantially  the  same 
as  one  submitted  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  Mercantile  Affairs, 
which,  after  a  very  full  and  careful  examination,  received  but  a 
single  vote, — that  of  the  gentleman  offering  the  bill.  It  differs 
from  the  original  bill  in  only  three  points :  the  number  of  gas 
consumers  which  shall  be  needed  in  order  to  insure  the  appoint- 
ment of  inspectors ;  the  manner  in  which  the  inspectors  shall 
be  paid ;  and  the  amount  of  impurity  in  the  gas,— neither  of 
which  variations  is  material  in  view  of  the  more  important  ques- 
tions involved  in  the  other  provisions  of  the  bill.  The  real 
question  is  the  comparative  value  of  the  law  now  in  force 
throughout  the  State,  and  the  proposed  bill,  which  is  limited  to 
only  a  part  of  the  State. 


2  REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


Although  all  persons  interested  in  the  question  were  invited, 
by  notice  in  the  papers,  to  appear  before  the  Committee  on  Mer- 
cantile Affairs,  no  one  except  the  author  of  the  bill  appeared  to 
question  the  cffitjHjiqy.  <jf: the; present  law,  nor  was  any  doubt 
thrown  upon^  the*  knoVIetfg^,:  ability,  fidelity  and  scrupulous 
accuracy  of  tjie/  StalJi  ;f  as}:tec&H\.;  ;W.hile  it  was  conceded  that 
the  present  law  "i§  susceptible  ofi&rn*ej*dment,  it  was  clear  to  the 
Committee  th^r^tl^Tov%U\\^;l^w  has  now  been  in  force  nearly 
eight  years,  no  iiicbhveftren<Se,»  Aas  yet  arisen  from  any  of  its 
real  or  supposed  defects,  and  that  if  any  amendments  may  here- 
after become  desirable  they  will  be  rather  of  the  nature  of  an 
extension  of  its  provisions  than  of  a  change  of  its  principles. 

The  bill  submitted  to  your  Committee  proposes  radical 
changes  in  the  manner  of  testing  gas  and  meters,  and  carries 
them  out  with  a  great  variety  of  needless  detail  and  expense. 
The  whole  principle  of  the  bill,  if  there  is  any  principle  in  it,  is 
the  burner,  which  was  shown  by  abundant  proof  to  be  an  untried 
experiment  with  the  gases  of  the  State,  and  not  known  theoret- 
ically or  practically,  as  a  just  test  for  any  one  gas  in  the  State. 

The  testimony  of  all  experts,  the  experience  shown  by  a  most 
extensive  legislation  on  the  subject  in  Great  Britain,  all  reliable 
evidence,  pointed  one  way, — that  the  value  of  the  gas  is  in 
itself,  and  not  in  the  burner,  and  that  wherever  legislation  has 
specified  a  burner,  it  was  one  strictly  adapted  to  the  gas  which 
was  to  be  tried  by  it ;  that  the  most  recent  legislation  in  Eng- 
land had  simply  specified  the  grade  of  the  gas  and  had  left  to 
the  inspectors  the  selection  of  the  burner  by  which  it  was  to  be 
tested  ;  and  that  there  was  no  human  possibility  of  adapting  one 
burner  to  ten,  twenty  or  sixty  gases,  a  large  proportion  of 
which,  though  of  similar  illuminating  power,  were  made  from 
different  coals  and  were  of  different  chemical  combinations. 

This  point  of  a  fixed  burner  is  of  more  practical  importance 
than  would  appear  at  first  sight.  As  an  illustration  of  this  it 
was  shown  in  evidence  that  a  burner  in  the  possession  of  the 
Boston  Gas-Light  Company,  like  the  one  described  in  the  bill, 
when  used  by  the  State  Inspector  for  the  purpose  of  testing 
Boston  gas,  reduced  its  value,  which  was  from  18  to  20  candles, 
below  the  standard  of  the  proposed  bill,  and  would  make  that 
company  absolutely  liable  to  a  fine  of  f  100  for  each  day  that 
they  continued  to  make  a  gas  which,  as  gas  is  commonly  burned 


1869.] 


senate—No.  387. 


8 


throughout  the  United  States,  is  of  the  grade  known  as  18  to  20 
candle  gas,  but  which  is  at  once  reduced  below  16  candles  when 
burned  in  the  proposed  burner,  simply  because  that  burner  is 
not  suited  to  the  consumption  of  5  cubic  feet  of  gas  of  a  high 
quality.  In  other  words,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  provisions 
of  the  proposed  bill  they  must  reduce  the  quality  of  their  gas  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  can  be  used  in  a  burner  which  is  not  a 
fair  test  for  the  gas  now  made  by  them,  and  which  is  not  in  use 
by  any  one  of  their  consumers.  The  effect  of  this  reduction  in 
the  quality  of  the  gas  would  be  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  the 
bills  which  their  consumers  would  be  called  on  to  pay ;  and  to 
provide  by  law  that  5  cubic  feet  of  gas  consumed  in  this  burner 
should  be  equal  to  16  candles  would  forever  prevent  the  use  of 
gases  of  a  higher  illuminating  power,  because  5  feet  of  such 
gases  cannot  be  burned  in  this  burner  without  smoking. 

Since  the  hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Mercantile. 
Affairs,  the  Report  of  the  State  Inspector  has  been  printed,  giv- 
ing much  additional  information  as  to  the  working  of  the  pres- 
ent law.  From  this  it  appears  that  there  was  in  only  three  of 
the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State  sufficient  curiosity  or  complaint 
as  to  the  quality  of  the  gas  supplied  to  them  to  lead  to  a  special 
application  for  the  services  of  the  Inspector.  It  also  appears 
from  other  inspections  made  for  his  own  information,  with  such 
test  burners  as  he  pleased,  without  the  intervention  of  any 
officer  of  any  gas  company,  that  he  had  tested  "  nearly  all  the 
illuminating  gases  offered  for  sale  by  the  companies  in  the  State, 
and  in  every  case  found  them  above  the  legal  standard,"  and 
that  he  had  inspected  most  of  the  meters  in  use. 

Your  Committee  are  aware  that  denunciation  of  the  extortions 
of  gas  companies  is  a  very  simple  and  popular  way  to  gain  pub- 
lic notoriety.  Recent  investigations  in  New  York  disclosed,  on 
the  part  of  one  corporation,  enormous  profits  obtained  by  selling 
gas  of  a  low  value  at  a  high  price.  But,  in  justice  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts companies,  it  should  be  stated  that  no  similar  evidence 
respecting  their  manufacture  or  their  profits  was  offered  to  the 
Committee. 

In  regard  to  the  petitioners  who  have  asked  the  passage  of 
the  proposed  law — for  the  reason  it  is  better  adapted  for  their 
protection  than  the  law  of  1861 — it  must  be  they  did  not  give 
the  subject  that  careful  consideration  which  all  petitions  should 


4 


REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


receive  before  signatures  are  placed  upon  them.  After  the  sig- 
nature of  N.  B.  Mansfield,  follows,  " provided  they  do  not  sell 
out"  showing  evidently  he  did  not  know  what  he  was  signing. 
One  gentleman  informed  your  Committee  he  "  signed  the  peti- 
tion to  get  rid  of  Mr.  Nash,  who  presented  it." 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  no  one  can  carefully  compare  the 
present  law,  which  applies  to  every  gas  consumer  and  every  gas 
company  in  the  State,  with  the  proposed  substitute,  which 
leaves  the  whole  subject  of  gas  and  meter  inspection  in  one-half 
of  the  State  dependent  upon  the  action  or  non-action  of  the  city 
or  town  authorities,  and  not  see  that  the  gas  consumers  are 
better  protected  now  than  they  would  be  under  the  proposed 
bill,  and  that  the  justice  which  is  done  to  the  gas  companies  in 
the  law  of  1861  is  denied  to  them  in  this  substitute.  Your 
Committee,  desirous  of  obtaining  all  the  information  possible 
on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  law,  forwarded  copies  of  the 
same,  with  copies  of  the  law  as  it  now  stands  on  the  statute 
book,  to  the  following  gentlemen,  acknowledged  as  experts  in 
gas  science  in  this  country: — Professor  Henry  Wurtz,  New 
York;  Professor  Benjamin  Silliman,  New  Haven;  Professor 
F.  H.  Storer,  Boston;  M.  L.  Callender,  Esq.,  New  York, 
editor  of  "  Gas-Light  Journal." 

Copy  of  Letter — addressed  as  above  noted. 

Boston,  May  31,  1869. 
Dear  Sir  : — We  forward  to  your  address  by  to-day's  mail  copies 
of  the  law  now  in  force  in  this  State  for  the  inspection  of  gas,  gas 
meters,  &c.,  and  of  a  substitute  for  it  which  has  recently  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  has  been  referred  in  the  Senate  to  a 
Special  Committee  consisting  of  the  undersigned.  So  far  as  we  can 
ascertain,  the  opinion  of  experts  here  is  against  the  proposed  substi- 
tute for  the  present  law ;  but  as  the  matter  is  one  which  so  largely 
affects  both  gas  consumers  and  gas  companies,  we  are  desirous  of 
obtaining  the  fullest  information  possible.  Will  you  have  the  kind- 
ness, therefore,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  to  give  us  the  benefit 
of  your  judgment  on  the  following  points? 

1.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  testing  of  illuminating  gas  and  the 
legislation  connected  with  the  subject  ? 

2.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  burner  described  in  the  5th  section  of 
the  proposed  law,  and  which  is  called,  we  believe,  the  Birmingham 
burner  ? 


1869.] 


SENATE — No.  387. 


5 


3.  If  you  have  seen  it,  have  you  ever  tested  any  gas  with  it  ? 

4.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is,  or  is  not,  a  fair  test  for  a  16  candle 
gas? 

5.  Supposing  this  burner  to  be  adopted  as  a  test  burner,  would 
not  the  companies  which  make  18  to  20  candle  gas  be  obliged  to 
reduce  the  grade  of  their  gas,  so  that  it  could  be  tested  by  the 
burner,  and  thereby  increase  the  amount  of  gas  consumed  by  each 
customer  ? 

6.  Do  you  know  of  any  one  burner  by  which  gases  of  different 
chemical  combinations,  but  having  an  illuminating  power  of  16 
candles,  can  be  properly  tested  ? 

7.  Is  it  so  easy  and  simple  a  matter  to  test  the  quality  and  purity 
of  gases,  that  cities  and  towns  could,  ordinarily,  obtain  inspectors 
with  the  requisite  scientific  knowledge  ? 

8.  Would  the  passage  of  the  proposed  law  secure  a  uniform 
inspection  of  gas  throughout  the  State  ? 

9.  In  case  of  a  dispute  betAveen  a  gas  company  and  an  inspector 
ought  there  not  to  be  some  appeal  from  his  decision  ? 

10.  In  general,  do  you  think  that  the  interests  of  all  parties  con- 
cerned would  be  better  protected  under  the  substitute  than  they 
are  under  the  present  law  ? 

We  remain,  your  friends  truly, 

Samuel  D.  Ckane, 
J.  G.  Pollaed, 
3Iassachusetts  /Senate  Committee. 

The  answers  to  the  above  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to 
this  Report,  as  will  also  be  found  the  report  [E]  of  a  hearing 
before  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  on  the  Hanley  gas 
bill ;  extract  from  a  paper  by  Dr.  Lethcby  [F]  on  the  chemistry 
of  gas  lighting,  May  31,  1865  ;  and  extract  from  the  report  to 
the  court  of  common  council  [G]  of  the  special  gas  committee 
on  the  passage  of  the  city  of  London  gas  bill,  1868.  Also  [H] 
extract  from  the  appendix  to  report  from  the  select  committee 
on  metropolis  gas  bill,  1867  ;  correspondence  [I]  of  your  Com- 
mittee with  the  Massachusetts  State  Inspector  in  relation  to  the 
burner  offered  by  Mr.  Nash  before  the  Committee,  and  the  test 
made  in  Mr.  Nash's  presence  of  the  power  of  that  burner  to 
burn  a  high  grade  of  gas. 

From  the  foregoing  the  Senate  will  receive  the  information 
that  no  one  kind  of  a  burner  is  suitable  to  test  the  different 


6 


REGULATION  OP  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


kinds  of  gas  made  by  the  different  gas  companies  in  this  Com- 
monwealth. The  "  Birmingham  "  burner  was  made  for  the  gas 
of  the  city  of  Birmingham,  which  was  14  candle  gas,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  burn  5  feet  per  hour  of  a  20  candle  gas  without 
smoking.  Mr.  Stimpson  informs  us  he  could  pass  but  4.25 
cubic  feet  per  hour  through  it  without  smoking,  and  when  he 
passed  5  cubic  feet  he  had  a  long  smokey  flame  eight  inches 
above  the  chimney.  Your  Committee  are  fully  satisfied  that 
the  bill  is  crude,  inconsistent  and  unjust ;  that  its  principles  are 
at  variance  with  the  results  of  all  recent  scientific  investiga- 
tions of  this  obscure  subject,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  pass. 

SAMUEL  D.  CRANE, 
J.  G.  POLLARD, 
Special  Commiltee  of  the  Senate. 


1869.J 


SENATE— No.  387. 


7 


APPENDIX. 


[A.] 

REPLY  OF  PROFESSOR  WURTZ. 

No.  26  Pine  Street,  New  York,  > 
June  4,  1869.  j 

To  the  Honorable  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Senate. 

Gentlemen  : — I  have  the  honor  to  submit  replies  to  the  questions  you  have 
laid  before  me. 

Your  first  question  is :  "  Are  you  familiar  with  the  testing  of  illuminating 
gas,  and  the  legislation  on  the  subject  V  "  In  the  former  I  claim  to  be  an 
expert.  I  assisted  in  drafting  the  bill  recently  proposed  to  the  New  York 
Legislature  for  regulating  illuminating  gas. 

Your  second  question  is  substantially :  "  Have  you  seen  the  so-called 
Birmingham  burner  ?  " 

It  has  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  used  as  a  test  burner  in  this  country.  It 
is  wholly  unadapted,  however,  to  burn,  without  smoke,  gas  of  more  than  13  or 
14  candle  power,  chiefly  in  consequence  of  its  small  internal  diameter,  (but 
half  an  inch  at  the  top.)  Our  largest  gas  company,  the  Manhattan,  whose 
standard  ranges  about  15  candles,  use  a  test  burner  which  has  a  diameter  of 
throat  of  0.66  inch.  Considerable  confusion  is  introduced  into  the  printed 
documents  sent  me  by  you,  by  designating  this  burner  constantly  as  the 
"  parliamentary  burner,"  whereas  no  general  Act  of  Parliament  specifies  this 
burner. 

Third  question.    I  have  not  tested  gas  with  it. 

Fourth  question.  It  cannot  be  a  fair  test  for  such  gas,  for  the  plain  reason 
that  it  cannot  supply  air  enough  to  burn  properly  a  gas  of  this  grade. 

Fifth  question.  According  to  the  general  testimony  of  gas  engineers,  it  is 
impracticable  to  measure  even  15  or  16  candle  gas  with  a  burner  of  these 
dimensions,  much  less  18  or  20.  Unless  I  strangely  misapprehend  or  misin- 
terpret, the  whole  proposed  law,  with  section  5,  would,  without  doubt,  be 
impracticable  and  inoperative. 

Sixth  question.  The  meaning  of  the  question  is  not  clear  to  me.  If  it  is 
meant  to  ask  whether  a  burner  exists  which  would  indicate  whether  a  special 
gas  would  give  16-candle  power,  or  more  or  less,  with  another  burner,  the 
answer  is  No.  The  enormous  difference  in  the  indicating  of  different  burners 
has  long  been  a  matter  of  notoriety  among  those  familiar  with  gas.  For 


8 


REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


example:  The  London  Board  of  Gas  Referees  have  recently  adopted  for  low 
grade  gas  a  new  Argand  test  burner,  which  gives  in  the  proportion  of  116- 
candle  power,  while  a  common  fish-tail  burner  gives  but  89  ;  but,  with  cannel 
gas,  they  state  that  this  proportion  is  more  than  reversed ;  for  while  the  new 
Argand  gives  with  this  100,  the  common  fish-tail  gives  118.  It  appears  that 
the  Act  of  Parliament  vaguely  directs  a  15  hole  5  foot  Argand,  with  7-inch 
chimney,  admitting  the  widest  variation  in  internal  diameter.  Hence  much 
trouble  and  confusion  regarding  test  burners.  It  has  been  claimed  that  a  test 
burner  should  be  used  similar  to  the  burners  most  generally  in  use  by  the  com- 
munity. If  so,  the  first  step  should  be  to  ascertain  what  form  of  burner  is  in 
most  common  use.  Certainly  not  the  Birmingham.  Others  claim  that  the 
companies  are  entitled  to  use  as  a  test  such  burner  as  suits  their  own  gas  best, 
and  that  consumers  should  conform.  These  are  mooted  points,  still  requiring 
much  examination.  If  means  were  discovered  of  making  high  grade  (say 
18-candle)  gas  very  cheaply,  the  common,  cheap  fish-tail,  requiring  no  chim- 
ney, would  become  the  best  burner  for  the  consumer.  It  has  occurred,  also, 
that  the  sixth  question  may  have  been  intended  to  relate  to  the  comparison 
of  different  gases  with  the  same  burner  at  equal  consumption  of  five  feet  per 
hour.  If  so,  the  reply  must  still  be  most  positively  in  the  negative,  as  is 
apparent  from  the  facts  already  presented. 

Seventh  question.  It  is  not.  Suitable  persons,  under  the  proposed  law, 
could  rarely,  and,  with  no  certainty,  be  obtained.  Section  3  makes  them 
gas  chemists  and  analysts.  No  test  of  capacity  or  qualification  is  mentioned- 
In  the  minority  report,  salaries  of  $1,000  to  $3,000  are  mentioned.  None 
such  could  be  obtained  at  the  latter  sum;  few  for  any  sum.  One  familiar 
with  the  delicacies  and  difficulties  of  gas  analysis,  and  the  fact  that  many 
chemists,  skilful  in  other  analysis,  never  acquire  this,  will  look  upon  the 
scheme  as  one  of  the  bare  possibilities  of  the  future,  but  of  a  future  still  far 
ahead. 

Eighth  question.  The  reply  is  included  virtually  in  that  to  the  last  ques- 
tion. Without  uniformity  of  inspectors,  how  could  there  be  any  of  the 
inspection  ? 

Ninth  question.  Competent  inspectors,  on  the  basis  proposed,  should  assign 
such  exact  and  conclusive  reasons  for  their  decisions,  based  upon  experimental 
tests,  that  no  appeal  could  reasonably  hold. 

I  believe  that  no  system  of  inspection  could  be  expected  to  become  success- 
ful and  permanent  unless  placed  under  control  of  men  whose  high  position  in 
the  world  of  science  would  furnish  an  assurance  of  rectitude,  efficiency  and 
incorruptibility;  provided,  also,  with  salaries  of  the  most  liberal  amount. 
Inspectors  may  then  be  but  assistants. 

Tenth  question.    I  do  not.    Time  and  space  limit  me  to  but  a  few  points. 

Section  3  of  the  proposed  law  creates  many  instead  of  one  central  labora- 
tory, provided  with  standard  test  apparatus,  which  latter  provision  I  believe 
to  be  essential.  Who  is  to  specify  the  nature  of  the  test  instruments,  etc., 
with  which  these  many  distinct  laboratories  are  vaguely  directed  to  be  pro- 
vided ?    Shall  each  inspector  select  his  own  ? 

There  are  no  efficient  or  even  specific  regulations  in  the  proposed  law 
regarding  the  highly  important  points  of  density,  pressure,  purity,  permanency, 


1869.] 


SENATE — No.  387. 


9 


etc.  The  mass  of  consumers  are  more  interested  in  knowing  that  the  article 
is  uniform  and  reliable  in  quality  and  purity,  than  even  in  getting  an  article 
of  a  little  higher  grade,  just  as  they  prefer  to  burn  a  coal  which  is  pure  and 
uniform  to  one  of  higher  heating  power,  but  ftill  cf'sUpbur'and  anti  clinkers. 
The  proposed  law  would  give  them  little  assurance  aWio  purity  and  uniformity, 
whilst  the  higher  cost  of  more  candle  power  would  fall'  upon  them,-i-more 
especially  in  small  towns  with  few  consum,eT3v>  whore  (awing  to  "the1  smal 
scale,)  the  cost  of  manufacturing  is  already  large.      -      ,       •  \ 

The  enforcement,  uniformly,  of  a  16-candlec  g&s ./cawnot bu^  be  'of  vital 
consequence  to  many  of  your  producers,  particularly  those  in  inland  towns 
and  localities  not  upon  tide-water.  Considering  the  distance  of  Massachusetts 
from  the  coal-producing  centres,  and  the  severity  of  the  climate  in  winter, 
which  tends  so  powerfully  to  depreciate  the  gas,  I  cannot  but  look  upon  the 
adoption  of  such  a  regulation  throughout  the  State  of  Massachusetts  as  hasty, 
indeed  highly  unjust,  legislation. 

In  conclusion,  after  an  exhaustive  review  of  all  questions  involved,  I  must 
state  my  conviction  that  the  proposed  law  is  full  of  impracticabilities,  and  that 
its  adoption  would  be  a  misfortune  both  to  consumers  and  producers,  and  a 
re !  rograde  step  into  the  dark  ages  of  gas  legislation. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  with  high  respect, 

HENRY  WURTZ, 
General  and  Analytical  Chemical  Expert. 

Boston,  June  9,  1869. 

Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  test  an  authentic 
Birmingham  burner,  made  by  Sugg,  of  London,  and  obtained  from  him  by 
Mr.  Greenough,  of  the  Boston  Gas-Light  Company.  Its  principal  measure- 
ments I  found  as  follows  : — 

Diameter  across  the  top,  1.1  inch. 

«        of  throat,  0.5  " 

"        of  apertures,  0.05  " 

The  Boston  city  gas,  of  about  20-candle  power  from  a  suitable  burner,  at 
this,ttime,  when^passed  at  the  rate  of  five  feet  per  hour  through  this  burner, 
made  a  long  smoky  flame  streaming  eight  or  ten  inches  above  the  top  of  the 
7-inch  chimney.  When  reduced  to  four  feet  flow,  the  candle  power,  by  the 
photometer,  corrected  to  five  feet,  was  just  17  candles,  a  result  virtually 
identical  with  that  of  Professor  Silliman  with  the  same  burner.  Other 
observations  were  made  closely  corresponding  with  the  opinions  of  this  pro- 
posed test  burner,  set  forth  by  me  before,  and  which  were  so  closely  accordant 
with  those  already  reported  independently  by  Professor  Silliman,  that  I  shall 
not  occupy  space  with  them  here.  Respectfully, 

HENRY  WURTZ. 


10  REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


-  •    REPLY/ OF  PROFESSOR  SILLIMAN. 

'    1     ■-.    ,  Boston,  June  7,  1869. 

Hon.'  (Sa^iTel  D*.  V8&A2m* 'Hop.  J.  G.  Pollard,  Massachusetts  Senate 

Committee. 

Dear  Sirs  r-^-ln  answer  Jto  your  favor  of  the  31st  of  May,  I  have  the 
honor,  after  mature  reflection,  to  answer  as  follows :  To  the  first,  second, 
and  third  questions  my  answer  is  in  the  affirmative.  To  the  fourth,  fifth? 
sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  questions,  my  answer  is  in  the  negative ;  and  with 
your  permission  I  will  now  proceed,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  state  my  reason 
for  the  opinion.  The  so-called  Birmingham  burner  is  a  particular  form  of 
Argand  burner,  adopted  upon  the  recommendation  of  Dr.  Letheby  as  best 
adapted  to  develop  the  illuminating  power  of  the  gas  in  the  city  of  Birming- 
ham, England.  The  gas,  possessed  by  the  evidence  before  us  an  illuminating 
power  of  fourteen  candles,  as  required  by  the  Act  of  Parliament.  But  this 
burner  is  not  adapted  to  gas  of  a  different  grade,  and  has  never  been 
adopted  by  the  gas  referees  for  the  city  of  London.  I  have  applied  this 
burner  as  a  means  of  testing  the  gas  in  Boston,  Roxbury  and  Dorchester,  in 
company  with  the  State  Inspector  for  Massachusetts,  to  whose  courtesy  I  was 
indebted  for  the  opportunity  of  using  an  authentic  copy  of  this  Birmingham 
burner. 

At  Roxbury,  I  found  the  gas  to  possess  a  mean  candle  power  of  16.10, 
when  tested  by  this  burner.  This  gas  appeared  to  me,  and  my  judgment 
was  confirmed  by  that  of  the  inspector,  to  be  much  better  than  a  sixteen  can- 
dle gas,  being  in  our  judgment  equal  at  least  to  eighteen  candles.  The  con- 
sumption during  our  examination  was  as  nearly  as  possible  five  feet,  (4.97)  at 
which  point  the  flame  tailed  up  badly — at  least  three  inches  above  the  chim- 
ney. The  burner  was  certainly  very  ill-adapted  to  develop  the  illuminating 
power  of  this  gas. 

At  Dorchester,  the  same  burner  developed  a  power  of  14.68  candles ;  and 
when  placed  in  contrast  with  a  more  common  form  of  parliamentary  burner, 
the  Birmingham  burner  is  seen  to  be  inferior,  inasmuch  as  by  the  second  the 
power  of  the  gas  was  recorded  to  14.94. 

In  Boston,  at  the  photometric  rooms  of  the  State  Inspector,  I  had  the  op- 
portunity to  bring  the  Birmingham  burner  into  comparison  with  an  ordinary 
form  of  Parliamentary  Argand,  and  with  the  ordinary  form  of  fish-tail  in  use 
in  this  city.  We  found  it  impossible  to  consume  much  more  than  four  cubic 
feet  of  the  Boston  gas  in  the  Birmingham  burner,  and  even  with  this  dimin- 
ished consumption  the  flame  "  tails "  badly  above  the  top  of  the  chimney. 
The  corrected  observation  by  this  burner  gave  on  the  7th  of  June,  16.61  on 
a  consumption  of  4.14  cubic  feet,  corrected  up  to  five  feet,  by  the  ordinary 
rule. 

By  the  same  parliamentary  burner  which  gave  for  the  Dorchester  gas  an 
illuminating  power  of  14.94  candles  we  obtained  from  the  Boston  gas  nine- 


1869.] 


SENATE — No.  387. 


11 


teen  candles ;  and  by  the  ordinary  fish-tail  burner  commonly  in  use  in  this 
city,  and  marked  for  six  feet,  although  reduced  by  our  experiments  to  less 
than  five  cubic  feet,  (say  4.69,)  the  Boston  gas  had  when  corrected  by  the 
ordinary  rule  an  illuminating  power  of  twenty-one  candles.  Tested  by  the 
Birmingham  burner  at  the  same  time  and  place,  the  Boston  gas  was  found  to 
possess  an  illuminating  power  of  only  16.60  candles.  It  must  be  conspicuous 
to  any  person  from  the  simple  inspection  of  these  results  that  the  Birmingham 
burner  is  very  ill-adapted  to  general  use,  and  that  it  is  restricted  in  point  of 
fact  to  a  gas  not  exceeding  an  illuminating  power  of  fourteen  candles — that 
when  employed  to  test  a  gas  such  as  that  which  is  furnished  by  the  Boston 
city  gas-light  company  it  is  found  lamentably  deficient,  and  would  result 
practically,  were  it  adopted  as  the  legal  standard,  in  compelling  this  company 
to  reduce  the  standard  of  their  gas  to  79  per  cent,  of  its  present  power,  being 
a  clear  loss  of  21  per  cent,  to  the  consumer.  This  loss,  be  it  remembered, 
would  not  be  felt  so  much  in  the  diminished  illumination  obtained  as  in  the 
increased  amount  of  the  bills  which  must  be  paid  for  a  larger  consumption  of 
an  inferior  article  so  as  to  obtain  the  same  amount  of  illumination.  In  other 
words,  the  consumers  would  have  to  pay  for  the  same  amount  of  light  at  least 
26  per  cent,  more  than  they  now  do. 

The  results  above  quoted  furnish  a  convincing  proof  of  the  accuracy  ol 
Dr.  Letheby's  statement  that  the  Birmingham  burner,  so-called,  is  best 
adapted  for  14-candle  gas,  and  equally  convincing  that  this  burner  is  very 
poorly  adapted  to  develop  the  power  of  richer  gases  than  that  for  which  it 
was  designed. 

As  the  law  requires  five  cubic  feet  to  be  consumed  per  hour  in  this  burner, 
it  is  impossible  to  adapt  it  to  gases  of  different  chemical  combinations,  many 
of  which,  owing  to  the  peculiarity  of  their  constitution,  demand  a  larger 
volume  of  air  than  others  for  the  most  complete  development  of  the  light 
which  they  are  capable  of  producing.  No  one  will  dispute  the  proposition 
that  every  consumer  of  gas  is  entitled  to  receive  the  highest  benefit  that  the 
article  for  which  he  pays  is  capable  of  affording,  and  fortunately  at  this  point 
the  interest  of  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer  meet. 

The  results  obtained  from  burning  the  Boston  gas  in  the  ordinary  fish-tail  ■ 
burner,  consuming  in  our  examination  only  4T77  cubic  feet  per  hour  gave  an 
illuminating  power  of  20^-  candles,  which  was  nearly  7^  candles  more  than 
was  obtained  from  burning  the  maximum  quantity  of  the  same  gas  which  the 
Birmingham  burner  is  capable  of  consuming.  Here  plainly  is  a  loss  to  con- 
sumers by  this  comparison  of  *  more  than  35  per  cent. 

The  skill  which  is  necessary  to  qualify  a  person  to  be  a  competent  inspector 
of  gas  is  not  easily  obtained,  and  the  number  of  persons  thus  qualified  in  this 
country  is,  according  to  my  observation,  by  no  means  large. 

In  the  case  of  a  dispute  between  a  gas  company  and  an  inspector  there 
ought  to  be  some  tribunal  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  made,  as  it  is  certainly 
possible  that  an  incompetent  person  may  be  appointed  to  this  office. 

In  answer  to  the  tenth  question  I  would  very  respectfully  suggest  that  in 
my  humble  judgment,  the  proposed  law  is  a  very  inadequate  provision  for  the 
purposes  which  it  contemplates,  and  an  imperfect  exhibition  of  the  present 
state  of  knowledge  on  the  important  subject  of  the  manufacture  and  distribu- 


12 


REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES. 


[J  une, 


tion  of  gas,  and  that  its  passage  would  not  be  creditable  to  the  intelligence 
of  the  enlightened  Commonwealth,  whose  interest  it  is  intended  to  protect. 

B.  SILLIMAN, 

Prof,  of  General  and  Applied  Chemistry  Yale  College. 


CO.] 

REPLY  OF  PROFESSOR  STORER. 

132  Tremont  Street,  Boston,  June  2,  1868. 
Messrs.  S.  D.  Crane  and  J.  G.  Pollard,  Massachusetts  Senate  Committee. 

Dear  Sirs  : — Your  letter  of  May  31,  propounding  questions  relating  to 
the  testing  cf  illuminating  gas,  came  to  hand  yesterday,  together  with  copies 
of  the  State  law  "  For  the  Inspection  of  Meters,  etc.,"  and  the  proposed  sub- 
stitute for  that  law. 

I  gather  from  your  letter  that  you  desire  categorical  answers  to  the  ques- 
tions.   I  would  reply  therefore : — 

1st.  That  I  am  tolerably  familiar  with  gas  testing,  and  that  I  have  paid  a 
certain  amount  of  attention  to  the  laws  of  England,  France  and  America, 
which  relate  to  that  subject. 

2d,  3d  and  4th.  I  have  seen  a  specimen  of  the  so-called  Birmingham  burn- 
er, but  have  never  tested  any  gas  with  it  (so  far  as  I  now  remember.)  Speak- 
ing in  general  terms,  I  may  say  that  I  do  not  esteem  it  a  proper  burner  for 
testing  16-candle  gas.  From  the  peculiar  construction  of  the  burner  it  would 
be,  a  priori,  unfit  for  testing  high  grade  gas,  such  as  is  made  in  Scotland,  and 
in  several  American  cities. 

5th.  I  think  they  would.  In  other  words,  I  do  not  believe  that  gases  of 
18  or  20-candle  power  can  be  fairly  tested  with  the  Birmingham  burner. 

6th.  No.  For  each  and  every  kind  of  gas  there  is,  of  course,  some  one 
form  of  burner  better  fitted  than  any  other  form  for  testing  that  par- 
ticular gas.  In  order  that  any  kind  of  gas  may  be  burned  advantageously 
it  is  necessary  to  adjust  the  flow  of  gas  and  of  air  so  that  there  shall  be  just 
enough,  and  no  more  than  enough,  of  the  latter  to  completely  consume  the 
former,  The  amount  of  air  needed  depends  not  only  on  the  quantity  of  the 
gas  which  flows  out  to  be  burned,  but  to  a  still  greater  extent  it  depends  upon 
the  quality  of  the  gas.  But  different  kinds  of  16-candle  gas  differ  widely  as 
to  their  quality — as  to  their  chemical  composition  I  mean.  Hence,  whenever 
a  new  kind  of  gas  is  manufactured  new  experiments  have  to  be  made  in  order 
to  find  the  burner  best  suited  for  that  gas. 

A  burner  having  a  certain  range  of  adaptability  for  burning  different  kinds 
of  gas,  might  probably  be  made  from  a  broad  Argand  burner,  provided  with 
large  air  spaces  and  many  holes  for  the  exit  of  the  gas  (such  as  would  be 
proper  for  burning  rich  gases)  by  fitting  to  its  air-ducts  a  sliding  arrangement 
by  which  the  supply  of  air  might  be  diminished  or  increased  at  will.    Such  a 


1869.] 


SENATE— No.  387. 


13 


burner,  however,  could  only  give  a  certain  approximation  to  the  best  results. 
It  would,  in  most  instances,  be  only  a  rough  substitute  for  the  best  burner. 

7th.  Outside  the  large  cities,  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  easy  to  find  many 
persons  properly  fitted  to  be  inspectors  of  gas. 

8th.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  uniform  inspection  of  gas  could  be  secured 
throughout  the  State  by  the  passage  of  the  proposed  law. 

9th.  The  right  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  gas  inspector  should  surely 
be  allowed  the  gas  companies.  Gas  inspectors,  no  matter  how  expert,  would 
still  be  human  beings,  with  human  liability  to  error. 

10th.  The  proposed  law  seems  to  me  to  be  inferior  to  the  existing  law.  I 
should  state,  however,  that  I  fail  to  see  the  meaning  or  significance  of  some 
portions  of  the  proposed  law.  Such,  for  example,  as  the  section  relating  to 
burners  (§  5). 

With  much  respect,  I  remain, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

FRANK  H.  STOKER. 


[D.] 

REPLY  OF  M.  L.  CALLENDER. 

New  York,  June  5,  1809. 

Hon.  Samuel  D.  Crane  and  Hon.  J.  G.  Pollard,  Mass.  Senate  Committee. 

% 

Dear  Sirs  : — Owing  to  my  absence  from  the  city  your  communication  of 
May  31st  has  remained  unanswered.  Presuming  that  you  require  an  early 
answer,  I  shall  therefore  do  so  now,  and  necessarily  very  briefly,  and  without 
taking  the  time  to  fortify  myself  with  references  to  authorities  I  would  do 
were  more  time  at  my  command. 

You  will  find  the  answers  to  your  questions  seriatim. 

First  question. — Answer.    I  am. 

Second  question. — Answer.    I  have. 

Third  question. — Answer.    I  have. 

Fourth  question. — Answer.  It  is  not  a  fair  test  for  10  candle  gas.  The 
Birmingham  burner  was  gotten  up  for  the  special  purpose  of  testing  gas  at 
Birmingham,  England,  because  it  gave  the  best  results  with  the  gas  of  that 
locality.  This  gas  was  less  than  10  candles,  generally  about  12  to  14  candle 
power. 

Fifth  question. — Answer.  If  this  burner  were  adopted  as  a  test  burner  for 
all  gases,  companies  making  10  to  20  candle  gas,  in  order  to  have  a  fair  test, 
would  require  to  reduce  the  grade  of  their  gas,  and  consequently  increase  the 
amount  of  gas  consumed  by  each  customer.  It  would  be  very  unjust,  and  a 
great  hardship  to  compel  gas  companies  making  a  high  grade  of  gas — of,  say, 
10  or  23  candle  power — to  test  it  with  the  Birmingham  burner.  In  fact,  the 
true  candle  power  of  the  gas  could  not  be  obtained  with  said  burner. 

2* 


14 


REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


Sixth  question. — Answer.  Gases  of  different  chemical  combinations,  but 
having  an  illuminating  power  of  16  candles,  cannot  be  properly  tested  by 
any  one  burner.  The  burner  that  will  give  a  correct  result  with  the  different 
conditions  above  mentioned  has  not  yet  been  invented. 

Seventh  question. — Answer.  There  are  but  few  men  in  the  United  States 
fully  qualified  to  test  the  quality  and  purity  of  illuminating  gases.  Hence  it 
would  be  impossible  to  find  inspectors  having  the  requisite  chemical  and 
scientific  knowledge  in  many  of  the  towns  now  lighted  with  gas. 

Eight  question. — Answer.  The  passage  of  the  proposed  law  now  before 
the  State  Senate  of  Massachusetts  would  not  secure  a  uniform  inspection  of 
gas  throughout  the  State',  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the  last  answer. 

Ninth  question. — Answer.  There  should  be  an  umpire  or  some  tribunal  of 
appeal  from  the  decision  of  an  inspector.  If  the  inspector's  decision  is  final, 
grave  abuse  of  so  great  a  power  would  be  likely  to  occur. 

Tenth  question. — Answer.  We  have  examined  the  present  law  and  the  pro- 
posed substitute  in  a  critical  and  impartial  manner,  and  are  unable  to  see 
where  the  interests  of  all  parties  concerned  would  be  better  protected  by  the 
substitute.  On  the  contrary,  should  it  become  a  law,  we  can  see  where  much 
injury  may  occur  to  innocent  parties — even  those  it  is  intended  to  benefit.  It 
will,  without  reasonable  notice,  place  a  great  and  unreasonable  expense  and 
burden  upon  the  gas  companies,  without  any  real  gain  to  the  consumers  of 
gas,  but  rather  a  loss,  inasmuch  as  they  now  obtain  a  given  amount  of  light 
with  more  economy,  from  the  quality  of  gas  generally  furnished  them,  than 
they  could  from  a  higher  grade  of  gas.  The  question  of  economy  for  heating 
purposes  is  on  the  side  of  low  candle  gas. 

Some  of  the  advantages  of  low  candle  gas  compared  to  high  grade  gas  are, 
the  freedom  from  glare,  so  hurtful  to  sight,  and  the  health  of  nervous  people ; 
the  better  diffusion  of  light,  without  the  necessity  of  interposing  globes,  shades 
and  other  media,  which  act  only  by  annulling  or  reducing  the  candle  power, 
as  much  in  some  cases  as  50  per  cent,  seldom  less  than  10  or  20  per  cent. ; 
the  freedom  from  smoke  and  soot,  and  injury  to  furniture,  etc. ;  the  perma- 
nence or  stability  of  the  candle  power  in  cold  weather,  etc. 

The  change  in  candle  power  proposed  would  burden  the  people  with  the 
expense  of  an  entire  change  of  burners,  or  it  would  cause  great  inconvenience, 
and  much  damage  would  occur  to  walls,  hangings  and  furniture  from  the  soot 
or  free  carbon  thrown  down. 

Most  respectfully,  &c, 

M.  L.  CALLENDER. 


1869.] 


SENATE— No.  387. 


15 


EE.] 

From  the  Report  (printed  in  the  London  "  Journal  of  Gas  Light- 
ing" May  16,  1865,)  of  a  Hearing  before  a  Committes  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  on  the  Hanley  Gas  Bill. 

Testimony  of  Thomas  Hawksley,  Esq.,  C.  E. 
"  I  am  a  civil  engineer  in  very  large  practice,  especially  with  respect  to 
gas  and  water  works.  My  experience  extends  all  over  this  country,  and  to 
places  beyond.  I  am  in  the  habit  of  laying  out  works,  superintending  the 
operations  of  companies  when  established,  and  of  advising  new  companies  as 
to  the  probabilities  of  success.  *  *  *  *  I  have  great  experience  in  pho- 
tometrical  operations.  With  respect  to  the  Birmingham  burner,  when  it  is 
applied  to  gas  of  high  quality  it  is  a  failure.  That  is  a  .14  candle  gas  burner 
and  it  developes  the  light  of  a  gas  that  contains  as  much  carbon  as  will  give  a 
light  equal  to  fourteen  candles.  But,  if  a  company  should  be  supplying  a  gas 
of  16  candles,  that  burner  will  not  exhibit  the  whole  amount  of  the  light  that 
is  contained  in  the  gas.  What  I  wish  particularly  to  express  is  this,  that  the 
burner  does  not  create  the  light  in  any  degree.  It  may  repress  the  light  by 
not  admitting  a  sufficient  quantity  of  atmospheric  oxygen  to  the  flame,  or  by 
admitting  too  much  to  the  flame — that  is  to  say,  by  not  being  properly  pro- 
portioned to  the  quality  of  the  gas — but  it  cannot  increase  it.  It  is  just  like 
any  excise  question.  Assume  the  case  of  wine :  you  may  by  a  bad  process  not 
discover  the  true  quantity  of  alcohol  that  there  is  in  a  particular  quality  of 
wine,  but  you  may  by  a  better  process  discover  that  true  quantity.  As  a 
matter  of  course  the  excise  would  be  entitled  to  the  best  mode  of  ascertaining 
it.  So  in  respect  to  gas,  the  carbon  is  the  alcohol  of  gas,  so  to  speak,  and  all 
we  have  to  do  is  to  ascertain  by  the  most  perfect  means  we  can,  what  quantity 
of  carbon  the  company  sends  out  in  its  gas,  because  carbon  is  the  vehicle  of 
light;  it  is  not  the  light  itself,  but  by  ignition  in  a  proper  manner  it  becomes 
the  vehicle  of  light.  We  have  here  a  remarkable  instance  of  a  burner  con- 
forming to  the  ordinary  description  of  a  parliamentary  burner  [producing  a 
burner].  This  is  a  15-hole  Argand  burner,  the  ordinary  kind  of  burner 
described  in  most  Acts  of  Parliament,  but  it  is  so  badly  proportioned  that, 
with  12-candle  gas,  it  gives  the  light  of  three  candles.  Here  is  another 
burner,  also  conforming  to  the  Act  of  Parliament,  but  better  proportioned, 
which  will  develop  the  light  of  14-candle  gas  and  show  it  to  be  14  candles. 
In  testing  the  quality  of  gas  by  a  photometer,  it  requires  that  the  operation 
should  be  made  by  a  person  of  experience,  and  by  trying  a  number  of  burners 
till  you  discover  the  one  that  is  adapted  to  the  particular  quality  of  gas.  It  is 
just  as  I  have  described  before ;  it  is  the  same  as  discovering  the  true  percent- 
age of  alcohol  in  the  bottle  of  wine.  You  do  not  put  a  percentage  of  alcohol 
in  a  bottle  of  wine  ;  you  only  find  what  is  there.  Ascertaining  the  quality  of 
gas  is  a  very  delicate  operation  by  that  means,  but  it  is  one  that  is  easily  ac- 
quired. I  do  not  think  the  experiments  of  a  man  who  had  no  experience 
eould  be  depended  upon.    You  might  deceive  him  in  a  minute.    If  you  took. 


16  REGULATION  OF  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


him  out  of  the  room  and  brought  him  back  again  without  effecting  any  change 
except  by  simply  altering  the  position  of  the  disc,  he  would  not,  if  he  tried  the 
gas  again,  come  within  two  or  three  candles  of  the  same  result.  Still  it  is  not 
a  very  difficult  thing  to  acquire;  but  the  eye  must  be  educated,  and  a  man 
requires  proper  experience  and  instruction.  There  are  a  great  number  of 
nice  adjustments  required;  first  of  all,  the  meter  must  be  adjusted  to  deliver 
precisely  five  cubic  feet  in  an  hour,  neither  more  nor  less.  The  pressure  of 
the  gas  must  be  properly  regulated  so  as  not  to  vary  during  the  time  of  oper- 
ation. The  burner  must  be  adapted  to  the  particular  quality  of  gas  to  be 
tested.  The  disc  must  be  of  good  quality,  because  and  [if?]  it  is  not  of  a 
proper  and  good  quality,  you  cannot  make  a  nice  observation,  and  then  the 
eye  must  be  trained  to  perform  the  task.  The  candle  has  to  be  weighed,  and 
not  only  that,  it  must  burn  in  a  particular  manner ;  because  if  the  candle 
tails  off  in  smoke,  as  a  matter  of  course  there  is  too  large  a  consumption  of 
the  materiel  of  the  candle,  without  a  proper  development  of  the  light  of  the 
candle.  So  at  the  other  end  of  the  photometer,  if  the  gas  tails  off  in  smoke 
the  same  result  follows  with  regard  to  it.  *  *  *  *  A  company  cannot 
use  a  burner  which  is  favorable  to  itself ;  that  is  utterly  impossible.  A  burner 
may  be  used  which  is  unfair  to  the  company,  because  it  will  not  develop  the 
quantity  of  light  that  is  in  the  gas.  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  make  it  too 
good.  Usually,  I  should  say  bat's-wing  burners  are  used,  and  for  this  reason, 
there  is  no  glass  attached  to  them,  and  therefore  there  is  no  breakage.  It  was 
not  the  object  of  Parliament  in  defining  a  burner  to  have  one  fixed  standard ; 
all  that  they  wanted  to  provide  was,  that  the  gas  should  be  burned  with  an 
Argand  burner  with  15  holes  and  a  seven  inch  chimney ;  it  left  everything 
else  to  tbe  discretion  of  the  parties." 

Testimony  of  Thomas  G.  Barlow,  Esq. 
"  I  am  a  civil  engineer,  and  am  mainly  consulted  in  reference  to  gas-works. 
I  have  been  engaged  in  that  capacity  upwards  of  thirty  years,  and  have  my- 
self erected  above  fifty  gas-works  in  various  parts  of  the  kingdom.  *  *  * 
These  photometric  operations  are  very  delicate,  and  cannot  be  conducted  by 
inexperienced  persons.  Supposing  the  corporation  have  the  power  of  testing 
the  gas,  and  imposing  penalties  if  it  is  not  of  a  certain  standard,  the  people 
of  Hanley  will  have  the  same  protection  as  exists  in  London." 

Testimony  of  Dr.  Letheby. 
"  I  am  Professor  of  Chemistry  at  the  London  Hospital,  medical  officer  of 
health  to  the  city  of  London,  and  gas-analyst  to  the  Corporation  of  London. 
I  have  held  that  office  for  thirteen  years.  I  have  heard  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Hawksley,  particularly  on  the  photometer,  Argand  burner  and  the  illuminat- 
ing power  of  gas.  I  agree,  to  a  large  extent,  with  the  opinions  expressed  by 
him — without  any  material  difference.  I  quite  agree  with  what  he  says  in 
this  respect,  that  the  burner  does  not  in  any  way  produce  the  light  of  the 
gas,  and  that  companies  are  entitled  to  the  best  means  of  educing  the  light  of 
the  gas.  *  *  *  To  take  the  example  of  the  Birmingham  burner  at  the  present 
time :  it  is  suited  for  14-candle  gas — indeed,  it  was  at  my  recommendation 
that  that  particular  measurement  was  adopted ;  but  if  the  company  give  15- 


1869.] 


SENATE— No.  387. 


17 


candle  gas,  the  burner  does  not  show  the  light,  and  the  company  do  not  get 
the  credit  for  what  it  gives.  *  *  *  The  test  by  the  photometer  is  a 
very  delicate  test.  It  is  exactly  as  Mr.  Hawksley  says.  It  is  not  difficult  to 
learn,  but  when  learned  true  results  are  easily  arrived  at ;  nevertheless  it 
does  require  teaching.  Supposing  a  candle  were  used  in  the  experi- 
ments that  was  not  proper  for  the  purpose,  an  incorrect  result  would 
follow :  the  same  with  regard  to  the  burner.  *****  While 
the  company  give  14-candle  gas,  the  Birmingham  burner  shows  the  true 
amount  of  light ;  but  if  they  give  more  than  14  candles,  the  burner  does 
not  show  it,  and  the  company  does  not  get  the  credit.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  company  do  not  give  14  candles,  the  tendency  of  the  burner  would  be  to 
show  still  less,  and  therefore  would  exaggerate  the  difference.  The  burner  I 
used  was  a  burned  of  t^ths  inch  internal  diameter,  instead  of  y^ths  of  an 
inch  ;  it  did  not  correspond  with  the  Birmingham  burner.  As  a  general 
question,  if  you  test  gas  a  mile  and  a  half  off,  you  lose  something  like  1  candle. 
But  I  have  known  instances  where  gas  properly  purified  has  not  lost  anything 
in  illuminating  power  by  travelling  six  miles.  In  this  instance  there  was  no 
difference  between  the  works  and  the  office  experiments  ;  that  was  in  conse- 
quence of  the  gas  being  well  purified.  There  is  a  great  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  whether  it  is  possible,  within  a  given  time,  to  alter  the  quality  of  gas  by 
consuming  cannel  coal.  The  difference  of  opinion  amongst  those  best  quali- 
fied to  judge  is  so  great  that  I  cannot  express  any  judgment  upon  it.  The 
difference  of  opinion  is  not  only  as  to  the  time  required,  but  the  effect  of  the 
change.  I  have  never  charged  in  my  reports  any  company  with  falsifying  ex- 
periments by  that  means — never." 


[p.] 

Extract  from  a  paper  by  Dr.  Letheby  on  the  Chemistry  of  Gas- 
lighting,  read  before  the  British  Association  of  Gas  Managers, 
May  31,  1865. 

"  You  will  see,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  one  burner  which  is  suited  to 
every  quality  of  gas,  unless,  indeed,  the  supply  of  it  to  the  burner  is  regu- 
lated. *  *  *  It  is  evident,  that  if  a  fixed  quantity  of  gas,  say  five  feet 
an  hour,  is  to  be  passed  through  the  burner,  the  burner  must  be  selected  to 
give  the  maximum  amount  of  light,  and  therefore  no  fixed  measurement  of 
burner  can  be  specified." 


[G.] 

Extract  from  the  Report  to  the  Court  of  Common  Council,  of  the 
Special  Gas  Committee  on  the  passage  of  the  City  of  London 
Gas  Bill,  1868. 

"  The  Board  of  Trade  are  to  appoint  referees,  who  are  from  time  to  time 
to  prescribe  the  mode  to  be  adopted  for  testing  and  recording  the  illuminat- 
3 


18  REGULATION  OP  GAS  COMPANIES.  [June, 


ing  power  of.  the  gas.  The  only  limitations  upon  the  discretion  of  the 
referees  in  this  respect  are  that  the  burner  is  to  be  such  as  shall  be  most  suit- 
able for  obtaining  from  the  gas  the  greatest  amount  of  light,  and  be  practi- 
cable for  use  by  the  consumer." 


[H.] 

From  the  Appendix  to  Report  from  the  Select  Committee  on  Me- 
tropolis  Gas  Bill  [1867].    Appendix,  No.  4. 

Alphabetical  table,  showing  the  minimum  illuminating  power  prescribed  by 
Parliament  from  1856  to  1866  (both  years  inclusive). 

Summary  of  189  Acts. 


1  Act  prescribing  9  candles. 

23  Acts       "  .   10  " 

4   «        "   11  "  ' 

40  «    !^f  [\  '."12'  ' 

7    «        "   13  " 

68   "         "   14  " 

4   "        "  ......    15  " 

6   "        "   16  " 

4   "        "   18  " 

1  Act  (Liverpool)  prescribing     .       .       .       .    20  " 

2  Acts  (Metropolis  and  Dewsbury)     .        12  and  20  " 
29    "    illuminating  power  not  named. 


Copy  of  Correspondence  with  State  Inspector  of'  Gas. 
commonwealth  of  massachusetts. 

Senate  Chamber,  Boston,  ) 
June  4,  1869.  j 

F.  E.  Stimpson,  Esq.,  State  Inspector  of  Gas. 

Sir  : — We  learn  Mr.  N.  C.  Nash,  and  Mr.  Hill,  called  at  your  office  yes- 
terday with  a  burner  which  they  called  the  standard  Birmingham  burner. 
Please  inform  us  if  this  is  the  same  kind  of  burner  as  described  in  the  bill 
now  before  the  Senate,  and  also  the  result  of  the  test  you  made  of  said  burn- 
er, the  amount  of  gas  you  passed  through  it  per  hour,  and  quality  of  the  gas 
in  candles  as  the  result.    An  early  reply  will  much  oblige 

Yours  truly, 

S.  D.  CRANE, 
J.  G.  POLLARD, 

Special  Committee  of  the  Senate. 


1869.] 


SENATE — No.  387. 


19 


Office  of  Gas  Inspection,  313  Washinton  St., 
Boston,  June  5,  1869. 


Hon.  S.  D.  Crane  and  J.  G.  Pollard,  Special  Committee  of  the  Senate. 

Gents.  : — Messrs.  Nash  and  Hill  were  here  on  the  3d  inst.  and  brought  a 
burner  purporting  to  be  the  Birmingham  burner.  I  only  took  a  few  measure- 
ments of  it,  viz.,  the  external  diameter  at  the  top,  the  internal  diameter  of 
the  top,  and  the  diameter  of  the  holes.  These  were  close  approximations  to 
the  dimensions  described  in  the  bill ;  though,  as  I  told  them,  the  diameter  of 
the  holes  seems  to  be  a  trifle  less,  by  about  inch. 

They  had  not  been  able  to  procure  a  chimney  of  two  inches  in  diameter. 

The  only  experiments  I  tried  with  it  were,  first,  to  see  how  much  of  Boston 
gas  could  be  burned  in  it  without  smoking,  (which  I  found  to  be  about  4£  feet 
per  hour,)  and  second,  how  much  it  would  smoke  with  5  cubic  feet  per  hour,  when 
it  showed  a  long,  smoky  flame  of  about  8  inches  above  the  top  of  a  chimney. 
I  made  no  test  of  the  candle-power  of  the  gas  at  that  time,  either  with  that 
burner  or  any  other. 


Respectfully  yours, 


FRED.  E  STIMPSON, 

State  Inspector  of  Gas  and  Meters. 


